Hi, I like the proposed new charter I think it makes it very clear what the rules are for work items in BLISS.
One question I have is should we need evidence of real running code and interoperability before releasing BLISS drafts as RFC's. I don't think it would be good if the BLISS group was to analyse existing implementations and then define a new but hopefully more interoperable mechanism but then find that nobody implements it. Could we have something in the charter that requires real evidence of interoperability before a draft can be released as an RFC or would this be going to far ? Regards Andy >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of Scott Lawrence >Sent: 05 November 2009 15:19 >To: Shida Schubert >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [BLISS] IETF76 agenda > >On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 10:16 -0500, Scott Lawrence wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 21:23 +0900, Shida Schubert wrote: >> > Here is the most recent version that Scott has >> > been working on.. >> > >> > >> >http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/lawrence/bliss-chart >er/charter.txt >> >> As it happens, I was editing it again at about the same time >Shida was >> sending that mail, so if you looked quickly, you may want to look >> again. >> That latest diff is at [1]. > >Forgot the footnote: > >[1] >http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://bit.ly/31shzt&url2=ht >tp://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/lawrence/bliss-charter >/charter.txt > >_______________________________________________ >BLISS mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss > _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
